alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND THE CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       8,890,275
<SECURITIES>                                 9,936,352
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,565,864
<PP&E>                                       4,327,372
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,335,524
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,567,549
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,155,410
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        85,787
<OTHER-SE>                                  65,342,146
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,567,549
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,169,761
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,924,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,128
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,754,684)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (7,754,684)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,754,684)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.90)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.90)
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020054EN.01001301.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 54/13

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Execution of a European arrest warrant issued against ZB

(Case C-627/19 PPU) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - European arrest warrant - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - Article 6(1) - Concept of ‘issuing judicial authority’ - Criteria - European arrest warrant issued by the public prosecutor’s office of a Member State for the purpose of executing a sentence)

(2020/C 54/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank Amsterdam

Party to the main proceedings

ZB

Operative part of the judgment

Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude legislation of a Member State which, although it confers the competence to issue a European arrest warrant for the purposes of executing a sentence on an authority which, whilst participating in the administration of justice in that Member State, is not itself a court, does not provide for the existence of a separate judicial remedy against the decision of that authority to issue such a European arrest warrant.

---

(1)  OJ C 383, 11.11.2019.

---
February 29,2016

FederalAviation Administration 600 Independence Avenue S.W. WilburWright Bldg.- Suite 2W1000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: HearingDocket Clerk AGC-430

Re: FAA File No. 2012S0700099 Request for Hearing Dear Clerk: \.
__ _!·', 

# !!Frost--n 

# tsr6wn1oddLLC
ATTORNEYS Winston E Miller Member 502.568.0296 (t) 502.581.1087 (f) wmiller@fbtlaw.com

VIA UPS Overnight and RegularU.S. Mail

Pursuant to 14 C.P.R. l3.16(g)(2)(ii) United Parcel Service, Inc. (an Ohio Corporation, "UPS Ground") and United Parcel Service Co. (a Delaware Corporation, "UPS Airlines") through its undersigned counsel hereby files a request for hearing regarding the Federal Aviation Administration's ("FAA's") Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty

- FAA File No. 2012S0700099 dated February 10, 2016 ("Final Notice") and received on February 16, 2016, in which the FAA proposed to assess a civil penalty in the amount of $16,250. This Request for Hearing is being made on behalf of UPS Ground and UPS Airlines because the Final Notice references and is based upon the Notice of Civil Penalty FAA File No. 2012S0700099 dated February 22, 2012 in which a civil penalty was sought from "United Parcel Service" and did not specify ifthe claims were against UPS Ground or UPS Airlines.

WinstonE. Miller Counsel for United Parcel Service, Inc. and United Parcel Service Co.

400 West Market Street 1 32nd Floor I Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3363 I 502.589.5400 Ifrostbrowntodd.com Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West VirginiaFederalAviation Administration Page 2 February 29,2016

cc: AndreaMichelle Harper Senior Attorney EnforcementDivision, SouthernTeam P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Request for Hearing has been sent via UPS overnight delivery, this 29'11 day ofFebruary2016. FederalAviationAdministration 600 Independence Avenue, SW Wilbur Wright Bldg.

- Suite 2Wl000 Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk (AGC-430) and a copyby certified mail- return receipt requested and regular U.S. mail to: AndreaMichelle Harper SeniorAttorney EnforcementDivision, SouthernTeam P. 0. Box20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 (U.S. Mail) AndreaMichelle Harper SeniorAttorney EnforcementDivision, SouthernTeam 1701 ColumbiaAvenue CollegePark, GA 30337 (Certified Mail)

OOOOOXA0624664 4818-9631-4402vl Counsel for United Parcel Service, Inc. and United Parcel Service Co.

400 West Market Street I 32nd Floor I Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3363 I 502.589.5400 Ifrostbrowntodd.com Offices in Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia
#### In the Matter of Mary C. Setford, Respondent, v Joseph K. Cavanagh, Appellant.

— Order unanimously reversed on the0 law without costs and matter remitted to Oneida County Family Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following Memorandum: In the absence of an agreement obliging respondent father to provide for the educational support of his children beyond their twenty-first birthday, Family Court erred in directing respondent to contribute to the private college education expense of his two sons beyond the date of their twenty-first birthdays *(see, Breslaw v Breslaw,*156 AD2d 627, 628; *Morrissey v Morrissey,*153 AD2d 609, 612; *Hirsch v Hirsch,*142 AD2d 138; *Hoffman v Hoffman,*122 AD2d 583, 584, *Iv dismissed*69 NY2d 706). The court further erred in concluding that respondent was obligated for those educational expenses incurred prior to the children’s twenty-first birthdays without making a finding that "special circumstances” warranted the imposition of such an obligation *(see, Samuels v Venegas,*126 AD2d 145, *Iv dismissed*70 NY2d 692; *Hoffman v Hoffman,*122 AD2d 583, *supra, modfg on other grounds*130 Mise 2d 701; *Kaplan v Wallshein,*57 AD2d 828) and in directing him to reimburse petitioner for educational expenses incurred prior to the date of filing of the instant petition *(see,*Family Ct Act § 449; *Matter of Aiken v Aiken,*115 AD2d 919; *Matter ofHackett v Haynes,*70 AD2d 1051).

*666Respondent concedes that the record is sufficient to permit this Court to make its own findings, and insofar as the issue of "special circumstances” is concerned, we conclude that petitioner demonstrated that such circumstances exist. Respondent graduated from a private college. Petitioner is a registered nurse, which suggests the successful completion of some post-secondary education. Both children have achieved very good academic records at their respective colleges, and respondent testified that he had no objection to the colleges selected by either son. Further, the record supports Family Court’s determination that respondent has the financial ability to contribute to his children’s education. We cannot determine from the record the amount of educational expense that should be allocated from the date of the petition (February 20, 1990) to the date each child reached twenty-one years of age. Accordingly, we remit the matter to Family Court for further proceedings and a determination, consistent with this decision, of respondent’s obligation to provide for the educational support of his sons. (Appeal from Order of Oneida County Family Court, Flemma, J. — Child Support-College Expense.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

GOTO DENSHI CO., LTD.,

Appellant

v.

MITSUBISHI CABLE INDUSTRIES, LTD., 

MITSUBISHI CABLE AMERICA, INC.,

Appellees

______________________ 

2017-1826

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2015-

01108.

______________________ 

JUDGMENT

______________________ 

TREVOR QUICK CODDINGTON, San Diego IP Law Group 

LLP, San Diego, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented by DAVID BECKWITH, JAMES V. FAZIO, III, CODY R.

LEJEUNE. 

ISRAEL SASHA MAYERGOYZ, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, 

argued for appellees. Also represented by SEAN 

CHRISTIAN PLATT, DOUGLAS CLARK, San Diego, CA.
 

______________________ 

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED: 

 PER CURIAM (DYK, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

 April 11, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner 

 Date Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court
# C_2021289EN.01001201.xml

| 19.7.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 289/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.7.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 289/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 3 June 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón — Spain) — Servicio Aragonés de Salud v LB

(Case C-942/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Principle of non-discrimination - Rejection of a request for leave of absence by reason of employment in the public sector provided for permanent staff regulated under administrative law - National legislation excluding entitlement to such leave when taking up temporary employment - Scope - Inapplicability of clause 4 - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court)

(2021/C 289/16)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Servicio Aragonés de Salud

Respondent: LB

Operative part of the judgment

The Court of Justice of the European Union has no jurisdiction to answer the questions referred by the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Aragón (High Court of Justice, Aragon, Spain), in its order for reference of 17 December 2019.

---

(1)  OJ C 103, 30.3.2020.

---
#### James BOGGS, Plaintiff in Error v. STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12317.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

Oct. 10, 1956.

*494Collins & Moore, Sapulpa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

JONES, Presiding Judge.

James Boggs was charged by an information filed in the Municipal Criminal Court of the City of Tulsa with operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, was tried, convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and has appealed.

The proof of the State showed that defendant while driving a 1950 Chevrolet truck turned a corner at Boston Avenue and Haskell Place, ran over the curb between two trees, knocked over a fire plug, hit a stone wall and knocked the dump bed off his truck. The officers who arrested him about a block south of the place where the traffic mishap occurred immediately after it had happened said he was drunk. The Harger breath test given him at the police station showed that he had twenty-three hundredths of one percent of alcohol in his bloodstream. Fifteen hundredths of one percent is considered sufficient to intoxicate any person. Toms v. State, 95 Okl.Cr. 60, 239 P.2d 812.

No evidence was offered on behalf of the accused at the trial and no brief has been filed in connection with the appeal.

Affirmed.

BRETT and POWELL, JJ., concur.
#### ANTONIO BENNINGS *v.*DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION ET AL.

(AC 18894)

Lavery, C. J., and Spear and Dupont, Js.

Argued March 29

officially released July 25, 2000

*Antonio Bennings,*pro se, the appellant (plaintiff).

*Maria C. Rodriguez and Michael J. Lanoue,*assistant attorneys general, with whom, on the brief, were *Richard Blumenthal,*attorney general, and *Charles A. Over-end,*assistant attorney general, for the appellees (defendants).

*Opinion*

PER CURIAM.

The pro se plaintiff, Antonio Bennings, appeals from the judgment dismissing his action that alleged wrongful discharge, breach of contract and breach of contractual good faith. The plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly dismissed his complaint because (1) the named defendant, the department of correction,1 wrongfully discharged him from his position as a correction officer, (2) he properly completed the background form that the named defendant required for him to maintain his employment, (3) the named *84defendant received the completed background check and falsely denied such receipt and (4) the named defendant did not make it clear that failure to sign the additional background form would result in discipline or termination. The complaint was dismissed because the state did not consent to the suit and was, therefore, immune from suit on the basis of the doctrine of sovereign immunity. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The plaintiff, who is not a lawyer, has submitted a brief that is simply a compilation of documents from prior proceedings before the department of labor, employment security appeals division, and correspondence between the plaintiff’s then counsel and the named defendant. Although we “recognize that it is the established policy of the Connecticut courts to be solicitous of pro se litigants and *when it does not interfere with the rights of other parties*to construe the rules of practice liberally in favor of the pro se party”; (emphasis in original) *Rosato*v. *Rosato,*53 Conn. App. 387, 390, 731 A.2d 323 (1999); “the statutes and rules of practice cannot be ignored completely.” Id. Because the plaintiffs claims are inadequately briefed, we cannot review them. “We are not required to review issues that have been improperly presented to this court through an inadequate brief.” *Connecticut National Bank*v. *Giacomi,*242 Conn. 17, 44-45, 699 A.2d 101 (1997).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

 The other defendants in this action are the department of labor, Bennett Pudlin, Mark Manning and Robert Carbone.
Exhibit 11


                    ARGUSS HOLDINGS, INC.
                              
               STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION
                    OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                              
                              
                              
                                            Three Months Ended
                                      March 31, 1998  March 31, 1997
                                                             
Net Income <Loss>                          ($773,000)     $618,000
                                                             
Weighted Average Common Shares                               
  Outstanding - Basic                     10,361,000     7,271,000
                                                             
Stock Options and Warrants                         -       225,000
Weighted Average Common Shares                               
  Outstanding - Diluted                   10,361,000     7,496,000
                                                             
Net Income <Loss> Per Share - Basic           ($.07)          $.09
                                                             
Net Income <Loss> Per Share -                                
Diluted                                       ($.07)          $.08
# C_2010113EN.01000601.xml

| 1.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 113/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 113/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 March 2010 — European Commission v French Republic

(Case C-197/08) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 95/59/EC - Taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco - Article 9(1) - Free determination, by manufacturers and importers, of the maximum retail selling prices of their products - National legislation imposing a minimum retail selling price for cigarettes - National legislation prohibiting the sale of tobacco products ‘at a promotional price which is contrary to public health objectives’ - Concept of ‘national systems of legislation regarding the control of price levels or the observance of imposed prices’ - Justification - Protection of public health - World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control)

2010/C 113/07

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Mölls, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues, J. S. Pilczer, J.-C. Gracia and B. Beaupère-Manokha, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40) — Fixing of minimum prices — Hindrance to free movement of goods — Protection of public health — Relevance of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (OJ 2004 L 213, p. 8)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force a system of minimum prices for the retail sale of cigarettes released for consumption in France and a prohibition on selling tobacco products ‘at a promotional price which is contrary to public health objectives’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force a system of minimum prices for the retail sale of cigarettes released for consumption in France and a prohibition on selling tobacco products ‘at a promotional price which is contrary to public health objectives’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco, as amended by Council Directive 2002/10/EC of 12 February 2002;

| 2. | Orders the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Unify Corporation (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven D. Bonham, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my knowledge:

| | (1) the Report fully complies   with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934   (15 U.S.C. 78m); and                           
| | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                                                                                                                
| | (2) the information contained   in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial   condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|Dated:  March 16, 2006 | /s/ STEVEN   D. BONHAM 
|---------------------- | -----------------------
|                       |                        
|                       | Steven D. Bonham       
|                       | Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unify Corporation and will be retained by Unify Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2020068EN.01004003.xml

| 2.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/40

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 26 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Općinski sud u Zadru — Croatia) — R. D., A. D. v Raiffeisenbank St. Stefan-Jagerberg-Wolfsberg eGen

(Case C-277/19) (1)

(2020/C 68/48)

Language of the case: Croatian

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 187, 3.6.2019.

---